This is outrageous, another example of the idiots in Brussels imposing theit stupid ideas on the citizens of the UK.
Seems to me that incidences of hit and run will be on the increase if this is ever brought in.
Does this mean that if a drunk committs "suicide" by unexpectedly walking in front of a vehicle, that the driver can be charged with dangerous driving/manslaughter?
|
Unreal!
I drove down the Bayswater Road on Saturday, and when I got to the one way gyratory to branch right for Paddington, was horrified to see a mountain biker going like the clappers, in the wrong direction. Swerving in and out of the traffic merging at this busy intersection, he continued in the wrong direction up the middle of the two lanes heading from Marble Arch!
I have got to be responsible for this guy?
Beyond not obviously trying to run him over, I don't think so!
/Steve
|
This is a prime candidate for the law of unintended consequences. It would cause car premiums to shoot through the roof and MOST drivers, hit once for an accident that was not their fault would say, I won’t renew the insurance and will take my chances, of course you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb so they won't tax their vehicles or MOT them either. As it stands the fines for no tax/insurance/MOT are far cheaper than paying for them anyway and as for suing uninsured drivers, you've got to catch them to sue them, vehicles won't be registered in the owners name and the Police are far too important to attend something as trivial as a traffic accident.
Bring it on I say. We need a catalyst for UK drivers to rebel and this could very well be it.
|
This is a prime candidate for the law of unintended consequences... I won’t renew the insurance and will take my chances
Is it an unintended consiquence?
The Govt have recently rejected an offer by the insures to impliment an insurance disc system to combat the 1 in 20 people who drive without insurance. The insurance premium tax revenue alone would make this free scheme a winner on face value.
Cameras and a refusal to impliment a self financing anti-insurance dodging system add up to a way to try and force people not to document their cars.
I honestly think there's an angle we haven't thought of and that the goverment want to increase driving witout insurance.
--
Parp, Parp!
|
The angle you've missed is money, Toad.
We've discussed this before and it's probably in the archive, but as I remember it:
There are 300,000 convictions for driving without insurance each year with the average fine at £200. That's a cool £60million in fines entering the Treasurys coffers.
If the 1 million uninsured drivers insured themselves at an average of £250 per policy the Treasury would recieve 5% of this as insurance tax, ie £12.5mil. A NET LOSS to the Treasury of roughly £50 million a year.
So why would HMG ever support a free initiative to rid the roads of uninsured drivers?
|
|
|
|
It also opens a door for false compensation claims.
Short of money?
Jump on a clapped out old bike and ride into a car. Claim for injury, whiplash, loss of earnings, bike replacement, physiotherapy, nervous shock, punitive damages, whatever else you can think up.
You're guaranteed the dosh!
|
|
|
|
Yet more European nonsense.
Most cyclists in the Slough area behave with total disregard for their own safety e.g. no lights, ignoring red traffic lights and so on. This rule if enforced will simply alienate drivers and encourage bad cycling. Would it not be better to increase insurance premiums and fines for those driver that commit a traffic violation? Let the guilty pay.
Having hit a cyclist who showed no road sense whatsoever, and caused considerable damage to my car, and my nerves, and of course did not pay me compensation, I would say we should have a scheme to get money from dangerous cyclists. How about cycle insurance?
|
|
|
Aaaargh. As if the spurious one third figure wasn't bad enough, this guy commenting on the BBC story is now spreading the rumour that speed is the cause of MOST crashes.
Research shows 66% of drivers admit they speed, and that speed is a cause in the majority of road crashes. Peter Lewis Director, London Cycling Campaign
|
If "a majority" is 50% +, then we have gone from 7%, to 30%, to one third (33 1/3%) to over 50% in one short spin!
One hundred percent can't be far away!!!
|
I already proposed the 100% cause by applying "faulty" logic. See the www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=62...0 If you say something enough times... link
*************************************************************
Speedy response Jun 27 2002
WHAT evidence does Quentin Willson have to support his claim that "2,000 deaths every year are caused by badly planned and poorly maintained roads"? (Daily Mirror, June 21).
Speed is a factor in at least one-third of fatal road crashes.
That's why the Transport Select Committee proposed the introduction of 20mph zones and more safety cameras.
Vicky Cann, Assistant Director, Transport 2000
***************************************************************
What evidence does she have to support her claim that "Speed is a factor in at least one-third of fatal road crashes."
I think she has blatantly made-up this figure, as everyone knows that SPEED is responsible for 100% of fatal and non-fatal road crashes.
My Logic behind this is that, if all vehicles did not move at all (No SPEED), there would be no crashes and therefore no fatalities or injuries, (other than beating yourself to death out of frustration).
You could respond to her letter by e-mailing mailbox@mirror.co.uk
or if there is an error in my logic, tell me.
Regards
John R
|
|
|
I don't think we'll ever get to quite 100%. A friend once cycled over to my house to help me fit a soundproofing kit to a Land Rover. Since the self-adhesive pads weren't sticky enough, he used large quantities of Evostik to secure them, and by the time he had finished he was as high as the proverbial kite. He got back on his bike, set off for home, rode straight into the back of a parked car and ended up in the back seat, covered in broken glass. Hard to see how even the most fanatical anti-car campaigner could blame that one on speed, or come up with an argument that the car driver was to blame.
Richard Hall
bangernomics.tripod.com
|
"Hard to see how even the most fanatical anti-car campaigner could blame that one on speed, or come up with an argument that the car driver was to blame."
The car driver was to blame for parking the car on a public highway, making it a hazard that other road users must drive round.
|
Sorry Brian, but it was in a marked parking bay. Try again....
Richard Hall
bangernomics.tripod.com
|
If you actually wade through the text (available in PDF form the BBC site) this is what the relaevant explanatory note says:
"Insurance cover for pedestrians and cyclists in the case of accidents involving a motor
vehicle varies a great deal within the Community. In some Member States pedestrians
and cyclists are not covered by the vehicle's insurance unless some form of driver
liability can be established. In other Member States pedestrians and cyclists are
covered by such insurance because they are usually the weakest party in any accident.
In order to reduce such disparity, it should be ensured that pedestrians and cyclists are
covered by the compulsory insurance of the vehicle involved in the accident,
irrespective of whether the driver is at fault. This cover under the vehicle's compulsory
motor insurance does not prejudge the civil liability of the pedestrian or cyclist or the
level of awards for damages in a specific accident, under national legislation."
So there may be a get out where the cyclist really was being stupid. As both a motorist and a daily London cyclist (hey don't those new traffic light timings open up some opportunities for running reds :)) I can see both sides of this one.
there is quite a lot of other good stuff in there about inter availability of insurance within the EU and extending compensation to property in uninsured and hit and run incidents.
With a streak of optimism ?
simon
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've belonged to various cycling clubs for most of my life, and I find the idea of this proposed legislation as stupid as anyone, as do most "real" cyclists, who are also themselves car drivers. During the fuel protests a couple of years ago fellow bike riders were just as enthusiastic in their support for the protesters as their non-cycling road users. This stupid idea is a product of the smog mask and sandle wearers, who spend most of their lives on a distant planet and who will support any looney idea that is guaranteed to return us to a stone-age economy.
Unfortunately a number of these have managed to worm their way onto various committees on local councils over the years, and now they are also well represented on that facist dictatorship known as the EC. When will we ever learn, and return to being an independant nation again?
|
Amend the Road Traffic Act to read - any person who drives a motor car on a road or rides a pedal cycle without Insurance against third party risks commits an offence.
Draconian maybe but why not.
DVD
|
|
|
|
Presumably this "scheme" will only be applicable if the cyclist/pedestrian is adhereing to the laws of the land.
If they got hit when they were drunk and without lights or jay-walking, I would think that any lawyer worth his salt could overturn this.
|
|
|
